Decision search
Your search has 56921 results
-
Coventry City Council (25 013 506)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 27-Feb-2026
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with his children. Neither we nor the Council can achieve the outcomes Mr X is seeking. Only the courts can decide on the care and contact arrangements for Mr X’s children.
-
London Borough of Ealing (25 013 830)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 27-Feb-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s concerns about an officer’s conduct. This is because there is no evidence that Mr Y has suffered significant injustice because of the alleged fault.
-
North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 013 891)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Looked after children 27-Feb-2026
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about children services’ actions as it is unlikely we could significantly add to the Council’s reply.
-
Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (25 014 015)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Looked after children 27-Feb-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about backdated allowances for looking after a child. This is because there is not enough evidence of unremedied injustice to warrant investigation.
-
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 014 357)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 27-Feb-2026
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed her child for an Education, Health and Care Plan. The complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and the Courts have decided that the Ombudsman cannot intervene where the right to appeal has been used.
-
City of Wolverhampton Council (25 014 417)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council house sales and leaseholders 27-Feb-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled a ‘right to buy’ application. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right to take court action.
-
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (25 007 078)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 27-Feb-2026
Summary: There was fault by the Council. It has acknowledged that it did not consider whether Ms X’s son could access the provision he was entitled to under his Education Health and Care Plan. It also did not properly consider its duty to make alternative educational provision, when Ms X’s son could not return to school, and did not do enough to make sure that the school reimbursed the amount Ms X had paid for an online school as agreed. Ms X’s son missed out on education, and Ms X has not been reimbursed. The Council will apologise to Ms X and make the payments as agreed.
-
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (25 007 960)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 27-Feb-2026
Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to secure special educational provision in an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between a review meeting and the EHC Plan being changed. We also find the Council has not provided a sufficient remedy for previous missed provision. The Council has agreed to apologise, make financial payments, and make service improvements.
-
London Borough of Barnet (25 008 394)
Statement Not upheld Parking and other penalties 27-Feb-2026
Summary: X complained the Council did not offer a payment plan for several Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) it issued them. X said they were experiencing financial hardship with the number of outstanding debts. We have ended our investigation as the Council confirmed it would offer a payment plan and reduce the PCNs to the original rate. We consider this achieves the outcome X wanted and does not require further investigation.
-
London Borough of Ealing (25 008 426)
Statement Upheld School admissions 27-Feb-2026
Summary: The Council’s school appeals panel failed to give proper consideration to the validity of its admissions arrangements when deciding Miss X’s school admissions appeal. This did not cause Miss X an injustice as it is unlikely her child, Y, would have been awarded a school place had the panel properly considered the arrangements. The Council has agreed to remind its appeal staff and panel members to properly consider its admissions arrangements in future.